I’m sure you were all looking forward to it. He left an answer to my criticisms of his
failed predictions of evolution. He does not disappoint. It’s stupid.
We cannot defeat this density of inanity, but I will count it as a victory if he learns about these strange things called “paragraphs”.
Maybe these are not “predictions” per se, but more like expectations or “promissory notes.” Karl Popper coined the term “promissory materialism,” which means science likes to issue “promissory notes” in the form of ridged scientific dogmas….these dogmas are to act as the foundation and framework for the theory. So in a sense they are indeed predictions, but these “predictions” form the basic structure of what the theory is.
So you’re flip-flopping already? OK. But you also fail to grasp the nature of my criticisms. We make predictions to test, so obviously sometimes they fail. But also, many of your
failures are an ahistorical botch. You get the original hypothesis wrong, and you get the current explanation wrong.
So for example, the theory would “predict” that there should be biological leftovers such as junk dna or vestigial organs…..and sure enough junk dna and the appendix would fit right into those predictions….
First of all, junk DNA was a bit of a surprise. In the early 20th century (and right up into the last half — Ernst Mayr did not expect junk DNA), selection was viewed as a kind of inevitable force that would pare away deleterious or non-essential elements. But even early on, the population geneticists you disparaged made it clear with mathematics that there were limits on the potency of selection, and as we learned more about the actual size of the genome, it became increasingly clear that it could not all be the product of selection. Neutral and nearly-neutral theory explained how much of the genome should not be selectively advantageous, and genome sequencing confirmed it. So the history was:
In the absence of hard information about the physical nature of genes, and with only Darwin’s theory of selection to guide them, it was assumed that what would be called the genome would be functional.
As population geneticists explored the mathematics of evolution and selection, a consensus emerged that much of the genome could not be functional or advantageous.
Molecular biologists sequenced the genome and confirmed that there was a heck of a lot of junk in there. Unfortunately, because science is really, really big, some molecular biologists skipped the understanding of #2, and are confusing the issue by straining to impose functionality on nonsense.
As for vestigial organs, did you even bother to look at the link I provided? Charles Darwin himself explained what the term meant, it doesn’t mean what you think it means, and the concept is still valid.
same with the notion of the impossibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics….that was a prediction, a basic rule or framework that was established many decades ago when the theory was formed, because adaptive traits were said to be spread by selection and vertical descent, not horizontally due to adaptive internal factors…otherwise phylogenetic trees would have giant question marks all over them……..
Horizontal gene transfer is not Lamarckism, or the inheritance of acquired characters. You don’t seem to understand the terminology you throw around at all.
And again, you don’t understand the history, either. Darwin’s biggest blunder was proposing a theory of heredity that involved the inheritance of acquired characters and a violation of what would be called Weismann’s barrier. He actually endorsed something similar to Lamarckism! What changed was multiple converging lines of evidence. Weismann was a cytologist, studying the structure and function of cells, and he determined that the germ line was a specifically sequestered set of cells with a unique pattern of multiplication that was necessary for their function, and was not shared with somatic cells. There is no observed violation of Weismann’s barrier in us, except in the case of biotechnological manipulation (induced stem cells could be regarded as a violation.)
Dawkins offered to eat his hat if biology had to return to Lamarckism….”a promissory note” that in my opinion needs to be fulfilled.
Except that biology has not returned to Lamarckism. It has no mechanism, and it has no evidence to support it.
So maybe the things I listed in my video are not predictions in the typical sense, but they do certainly serve as expectations, which is essentially the same thing. They’re also all easily defendable. Neo-Lamarckism, Weissman’s barrier, the inheritance of acquired characteristics are all confirmed by epigenetic changes and horizontal gene transfer, both of which involve acquiring traits and then passing them on to future generations.
But once again, your problem is that you don’t understand what epigenetics is. Epigenetics is not Lamarckism, neo-Lamarckism, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Again, did you even bother to read the link to a summary of epigenetics I gave you?
“To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations.” http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/101%20Watters%202006.htm The molecular clock is argued and debated as to how to set it….how can the molecular clock be right if people are fighting about how fast it ticks? And how can the molecular clock be right if evo devo is right, which assumes small changes in regulation can alter a myriad of tratis, sometimes without a change in protein coding genes at all? And yes, the appendix was claimed for decades to have no function…as was junk dna….ENCODE shot that down…along with other assorted evidences that the “junk” has function: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509205719.htm …the idea that genomes are static during the lifetime of the individual is just ridiculous. Have you read Shapiro’s book? Surely I don’t need to defend the notion that genomes aren’t dynamically adaptive.
Wait. Hold it right there. I see once again in your wall of text the beginning bugle of a Gish Gallop. Focus! Pick one thing! You’re not only trying to throw the entire contents of the pantry of creationist misconceptions at me, you don’t even understand the basics, and worst of all, you’re not even trying to understand what scientists actually say about these concepts. Pick ONE thing. Explain what you understand about it. Resist the temptation to fill in the massive gaps in your knowledge with a flood of buzzwords (that you also don’t understand) from some other topic.
Honestly, it does not make you look erudite. It makes you look like a shallow buffoon.
Also, look up “paragraphs”. I think it was in your third grade curriculum.
By the way, James Shapiro is a fringe crank. If you think he’s at all representative of modern biology, or that his criticisms of evolution are at all useful, you are mistaken.